The 1996 Hague Convention will enter into force for Norway on 1 July 2016.

Norway deposited its instrument of ratification with the Hague Bureau.

The habitual residence see-saw

Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2016] UKSC 4

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a parent against the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the High Court’s finding that the English court had no jurisdiction to determine her application for a shared residence or a contact order in respect of her child, B, because B had ceased to be habitually resident in England immediately she was removed to Pakistan by her other parent. The Supreme Court ruled that a child’s loss of its habitual residence was no longer to be determined on the basis of parental intention, as held in Re J (a minor) (abduction: custody rights), Re [1990] 2 All ER 961, but occurred when the child had disengaged sufficiently from the environment of that residence. Usually a child would not become sufficiently disengaged until they had integrated elsewhere and thus habitual residence would usually be lost at the same time another was gained. That had not occurred in the instant case by the time the parent in England had made her applications. The Supreme Court also confirmed that in cases where the court considered exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction on the basis of British nationality that the reasons why extreme circumspection was to be used was not because exceptionally serious welfare concerns had to be demonstrated but because in such cases there was a risk of a clash of jurisdiction and risks that any order made could not be enforced.

 

 

Radicalisation Cases in Wardship: Guidance from Munby P

On 8 October the President issued Guidance on dealing with radicalisation cases:  http://flba.co.uk/blog/2015/10/08/presidents-guidance-radicalisation-cases/
 

Contempt: A reminder from the Court of Appeal

In the matter of L and Gous Oddin [2016] EWCA Civ 173

78. Before any court embarks on hearing a committal application, whether for a contempt in the face of the court or for breach of an order, it should ensure that the following matters are at the forefront of its mind:

(1) There is complete clarity at the start of the proceedings as to precisely what the foundation of the alleged contempt is: contempt in the face of the court, or breach of an order.
(2) Prior to the hearing the alleged contempt should be set out clearly in a document or application that complies with FPR rule 37 and which the person accused of contempt has been served with.
(3) If the alleged contempt is founded on breach of a previous court order, the person accused had been served with that order, and that it contained a penal notice in the required form and place in the order.
(4) Whether the person accused of contempt has been given the opportunity to secure legal representation, as they are entitled to.
(5) Whether the judge hearing the committal application should do so, or whether it should be heard by another judge.
(6) Whether the person accused of contempt has been advised of the right to remain silent.
(7) If the person accused of contempt chooses to give evidence, whether they have been warned about self-incrimination.
(8) The need to ensure that in order to find the breach proved the evidence must meet the criminal standard of proof, of being sure that the breach is established.
(9) Any committal order made needs to set out what the findings are that establish the contempt of court, which are the foundation of the court's decision regarding any committal order.

RE C (INTERNAL RELOCATION) [2015 EWCA Civ 1305

the proper approach to the whole issue of relocation may be stated in summary as follows:


a) There is no difference in basic approach as between external relocation and internal relocation. The decision in either type of case hinges ultimately on the welfare of the child.
b) The wishes, feelings and interests of the parents and the likely impact of the decision on each of them are of great importance, but in the context of evaluating and determining the welfare of the child
c) In either type of relocation case, external or internal, a Judge is likely to find helpful some or all of the considerations referred to in Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052; but not as a prescriptive blueprint; rather and merely as a checklist of the sort of factors which will or may need to be weighed in the balance when determining which decision would better serve the welfare of the child.